Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan3 who wrote (92858)	2/13/2000 1:49:00 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573980

Dan, A 16 way cache is somewhat more efficient at utilizing non-random addresses than a 2 way cache is. Any address that fits in the 2 way L1 would certainly fit in the 16 way L2. 100% duplication would occur. Assuming 128K cache and 32 byte line size: 2-way would use address bits 20:5 to select the cache index, and bits 31:21 for the tag. 16-way would use address bits 17:5 to select the index and bits 31:18 for the tag. The 16 way is more efficient because 8 times as many addresses can fit into the same cache index. Any address which can fit in the 2 way will definitely also fit in the 16 way, guaranteeing 100% duplication. Scumbria